Check out this story about what Bush knew before the Iraq war. Here's a quote:
Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.
I wonder if the Congress saw this "same intelligence," hmmm?
Sick of Politics
A friend told me he was sick of politics because no matter what he reads, no matter which side it's written from, he can't believe it because it's written from biases, not from truth.
I'm currently reading "The Republican Noise Machine" by David Brock, and it mentioned a study that kind of gets at this point. Here is a link to the study (.pdf) and here is a quote from the Brock book about the study's findings:
...the liberal papers criticized President Bill Clinton 30 percent of the
time, while the conservative papers criticized President George W. Bush only 7
percent of the time. The conservative papers praised George W. Bush's
administration 77 percent of the time, while the liberal papers praised the
Clinton administration only 30 percent of the time. The liberal papers
criticized Bush 67 percent of the time, while conservative papers criticized
Clinton 89 percent of the time (p. 133).
So, the point is, it would seem that, from the results of this study, the liberal papers are more trustworthy than the conservative papers, if only because they are more willing to be fair, even-handed, and accepting of arguments and ideas that don't necessarily line up exactly with their own.